Scott Segal, the executive director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council said: “Having undertaken an initial review of the rule, we are still deeply troubled by its potential to raise bills for families, small businesses, schools and hospitals without providing any real benefit in reducing global warming or public health concerns. The energy rationing assumed by implementation of the rule will make US manufacturing less competitive, costing jobs and harming economic recovery. Some have suggested that the 30 percent target is more reasonable than anticipated. But the truth is that the most cost-effective reductions since 2005 (perhaps the first 10 percent) have already been undertaken. What is left on the road to 2030 is increasingly more expensive and less tested alternatives. Further, we are certain that EPA will be looking for particular benchmarks in anticipation of 2030 as it goes through the process of reviewing state implementation plans. They always do - and have even been known to reject state plans sight unseen. Further, If the economy does grow as the Administration certainly would hope, so will energy demand, which will complicate the glide path the EPA anticipates. We were pleased to see that EPA has opted for a 120 day comment period, particularly given the complexities of the proposal. But much depends on implementation, and the recent EPA track record hasn't been very good on working cooperatively with the states or the regulated community.”